14 babies with a fatal vaccine reaction out of 7500 is well in excess of the kind of vaccine reaction rate that would be expected with the vaccines currently in use (I divided the 15,000 baby study group in half to just look at the control group that these infants were part of, but 14 out of 15,000 would still be huge). I think it would be interesting to know what these infants died of. And like any other entity, GSK should face serious penalties for any violations of ethical standards. From the information available at this time, however, it seems unlikely that the deaths were caused by the vaccine.

how many died in the other group?

If it was nowhere near 14 (nowhere near how many kids would die naturally during that period) then something is off. It does not automatically mean it was the vaccine, but it might have been, and I hope further investigations are going on to figure out what went wrong.

Furthermore, since they illegally and unethically enrolled infants in the study, how can we trust that they are being honest that the babies who died WEREN'T given the trial vaccine? Because lying would be wrong?

My own opinion is that it doesn't matter whether they gave the babies the trial vaccine or the placebo--either way, they gave vaccines that have a much higher chance of causing severe adverse effects than they let on.

We know darn well that most of the time, they don't let well-educated, high-income parents know what the REAL risks are in the US. It's a given that they are not going to let low-income, illiterate parents that there are ANY risks; pharmaceutical companies standard MO in drug trials is to make the participant or the minor participant's parent feel lucky that the big-city, smart doctors are giving free medicine.

Technically, denying a child a vaccine would also be unethical for a clinical trial.

You're making one HECK of an assumption: that the vaccine is necessary. Not something that may be good, or may help avoid disease, but NECESSARY.

Obviously, many argue that vaccines are unnecessary, but I think what's more relevant is that the necessity of most recent vaccines is debatable. There are valid arguments that it's not necessarily the disease that needs to be avoided, but complications from that disease, and that other factors are more important in avoiding both complications and spread of disease than vaccinations (such as sanitation, clean water, proper nutrition, etc).

It's rather similar to saying, "denying someone cold medication would be unethical for a clinical trial of a new cold medication."

You're also assuming that the risks are only what the vaccine manufacturers tell us (redness and sorenes at injection site, mild fever, irritability). Given the history of the corruption and ethical misconduct amongst pharmaceutical companies, it is naive at best to believe what the vaccine manufacturers tell us.

I realize you disagree with vaccines, but that is how researchers typically see the issue of testing new stuff when there is old stuff available to treat or prevent the condition under study. The researchers conducting these trials DO believe the vaccine is necessary, and we're talking about infants in Argentina here, who have been described as possibly having parents who are illiterate, which implies poverty. These are probably not parents who can easily deal with a sick baby, or get the child medical attention quickly, which increases the risks of measles. Sanitation and good nutrition are not necessarily given.

You wouldn't want them to test against a placebo only to settle on a vaccine that is less safe and effective than what we've currently got. It makes sense to compare.

I don't want to let them off the hook for anything unethical they have done, and apparently they did something, and have been fined a pathetically small amount. But it does actually make sense to test a new vaccine against the old one.

I realize you disagree with vaccines, but that is how researchers typically see the issue of testing new stuff when there is old stuff available to treat or prevent the condition under study. The researchers conducting these trials DO believe the vaccine is necessary, and we're talking about infants in Argentina here, who have been described as possibly having parents who are illiterate, which implies poverty. These are probably not parents who can easily deal with a sick baby, or get the child medical attention quickly, which increases the risks of measles. Sanitation and good nutrition are not necessarily given.

You wouldn't want them to test against a placebo only to settle on a vaccine that is less safe and effective than what we've currently got. It makes sense to compare.

I don't want to let them off the hook for anything unethical they have done, and apparently they did something, and have been fined a pathetically small amount. But it does actually make sense to test a new vaccine against the old one.

Whether or not I agree with vaccines is irrelevant, and you shouldn't be putting words in my mouth, anyway (a mistake you have made more than once on this forum). I have never said that "I disagree with vaccines."

The researchers conducting this trial are not comparing it to a vaccine previously in use in Argentina. Here is the pediatric vaccine schedule in Argentina: http://www.faerac.org.ar/vacunas_eng.php. Synflorix is not a measles vaccine, so I don't know why you write about the risk of measles, unless you are trying to confuse the issue.

It appears to be slated to replace Prevnar in the US. So if they were comparing it to Prevnar, it is worth noting the VAERS statistics on Prevnar:

Data from the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) - which include "coincidental" events as well as those truly caused by vaccines - reveal a total of 28,317 adverse reactions to the Prevnar since the PCV vaccine was approved in 2000. These adverse reactions included:

If the old vax caused deaths, permanent disabilities, hospitalizations, life-threatening conditions, if there are documented safety issues with production, and if the manufacturer has demonstrated a clear pattern of disregard for the human suffering caused by its products, it should no longer be used in testing or in the recommended vaccine schedule.

All of the above "ifs," of course, are true.

Remember, vaccine manufacturers have blanket liability protection in the US for ALL vaccines. They cannot be sued in the US even if the vaccine is known to be defective, because the Supreme Court has ruled that vaccines are "unavoidably unsafe." As Supreme Court Justice Sotomayor wrote in her dissenting opinion:

"The majority's decision leaves a regulatory vacuum in which no one - neither the FDA nor any other federal agency, nor state and federal juries - ensures that vaccine manufacturers adequately take account of scientific and technological advancements.... The vaccine market will often have little or no incentive to improve the designs of vaccines that are already generating significant profit margins." (bolding mine)

With more and more parents electing to delay or refuse Prevnar because of safety issues, as US parents realize that they will be completely on their own if their child does have a severe reaction, it is clear from the Argentina trials that Wyeth is looking to boost those profit margins rather than improve safety.

I think another part of the problem, is that they take the same standard procedures treating any of these diseases. Most people have now idea how important a good diet is, how important the correct vitamins are. Have any of you seen how much a difference vitamin C makes? There was a video on Youtube about a guy in Australia who got the Swine flu, was literally on deaths door, on life support and they said they were going to turn him off. His wife happened to find some info about how essential Vit C is for fighting the flu. She finally got the drs to give him Vit C via IV and literally within days this guy is off the ventilator, is starting to talk etc.. Well then the drs say, we can't give this too him anymore. It supposedly only the fact that they rolled him over that caused his almost immediate recovery. Which is garbage. The wife then had to take the hospital to court to get them to give him the Vit C again, but they would only do so in very low doses. His recovery was slow, but he did recover and once he was able to take liquids she would come in and give him a liquid vit C supplement on her own and they he really started to improve.

So while we all are being told that they can't help these people, that they are going to dye, have we really exhausted all our resources and is there a better way. Not just drugs but natural ways to heal even faster. I know their is. I've seen it with my own eyes. I've seen how good colloidal silver works, Even though most would have you believe it's toxic poison.

"Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport

The "Blue Man" admitted he made his silver incorrectly.....when properly made, it will not cause argyria. The Blue Man (Paul Karason) also said he would continue to use colloidal silver, despite the fact it turned him blue!

"Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport

Look, I'm not trying to be a *itch on here. I'm not putting any of this on here is a condescending tone. I do discuss risks of vaccines. There is a federal law that mandates a VIS form be provided with all vaccinations. They list the common to rare side effects, including seizures. However, have you actually looked at all those "Deaths" on the VAERS reporting. You are not required to provide any actual information or evidence. There is a lot of third or fourth hand reporting. I'm not exactly sure how car accident deaths are due to a vaccine. Atrial rupture after a TV falling on a child is not likely due to the vaccine. I am not saying this is a bad system. I do think everything should be reported. Afterall, we don't always put leeches on people or drill holes in their head anymore. Medicine changes.

To clairify, I've seen 1 death due to Pertussis in the past 5 years. I've had 2 patients in the past 2 years test positive for Pertussis that didn't die. 1 acutally had the full DTAP series except for his 4 yr old booster. I've also had a patient with Hemophagocytic Lymphohystiocytosis which is Incidence is reported to be 1.2 cases per million persons per year. http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/986458-overview#a0199. I live in a midwest state, hardly exotic. I also have never seen a death that was thought to be vaccine related. I'm thankful for that. It's bad enough to see the ones that happen for other preventable reasons.

For me my child is not vax at all my doc was shocked when I mentioned it expecting him to want to while I did not. Then at the age of 18 months my DD had a direct exposure to pertussis as did two others from our church. The other 2 where both vaccinated however my daughter was the only one who did not come down with pertussis. When my doc and I discussed it his response was let me guess they were both vaccinated. He was not at all surprised that my DD was the only one who did not get sick. There are so many variants of pertussis that the vax does not do anything for that it is a shot in the dark as to whether there would be protection even if vaccinated.

There is a genetic issue that many people don't know about or don't want to admit when it comes to vaccines. There is so much so much junk and dangerous stuff in them. There is a very good possibility that these vaccines are mutating dna and causing more defects. Because that's why when you see those who have not received vaccines with similar issues it could be something inherited from the parents. It may not cause the same issue in the parents, but because their dna has been damaged their offspring now has this damaged dna. Possibly causing all of these new issues, not only in the vaxxed kids but also in the non-vaxxed. And the more extreme issues are those that have multiplied problems.

Nailed it, Vforba! This bothers me too, and this is why there needs to be more research on vaccines!!

"Medical propaganda ops are, in the long run, the most dangerous. They appear to be neutral. They wave no political banners. They claim to be science. For these reasons, they can accomplish the goals of overt fascism without arousing suspicion.” — Jon Rappoport